Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,595
- 580
In the article about hte current Canucks ownership fight, I found this interesting comment from the new owner of the Canucks about why they wanted to buy into the team.
the article:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a6dbf38d-b8c1-4d21-9b42-329f19b99a52&p=3
the comment:
"He soon increased the proposed stake to 50%, believing, he said, that this would allow his family to "write off the [team's] player contracts," which then totalled US$42-million.
"We were relying on those tax writeoffs," he told lawyers, in an examination for discovery process."
anyone else find it somewhat inconsistent with the claims by the NHL that there business model was sick?
the article:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a6dbf38d-b8c1-4d21-9b42-329f19b99a52&p=3
the comment:
"He soon increased the proposed stake to 50%, believing, he said, that this would allow his family to "write off the [team's] player contracts," which then totalled US$42-million.
"We were relying on those tax writeoffs," he told lawyers, in an examination for discovery process."
anyone else find it somewhat inconsistent with the claims by the NHL that there business model was sick?